Syrphid
07-04-2010, 06:36 PM
The old thread was killed for some reason I'm not sure (wrong section?), but there doesn't seem to be a prob with the subject, material, and past responses, so I'm restarting this in the debate section.
Oh nice joke =D.
I believe it is morally wrong. And one thing, I believe religious reasons are certainly the worst way to support that fact. Quoting from the Bible, Koran, etc makes the argument even weaker and makes the religions look even less appealing. It's like trying to explain why democrats suck with a book written by a hardcore republican. However, this secular argument sums it up rather nicely, defending the role of the traditional marriage and the martial chaos that can ensue and the pain kids must go through to be deprived a mother or a father due to being adopted into a gay family without both a male/female role model. Of course, there are cases in heterosexual marriages too but in a homosexual marriage, almost 100% of the time, a child is deprived either a mother or a father while in heterosexual marriage, it is a much lower percentage, only resulting if the family is divorced or never married in the first place. Furthermore, breaking down the role of marriage to whatever people see fits does affect families adversely, making many take marriage not as seriously as they had 100 years ago when it was near PERMANENT.
This article I found sums up a secular argument about why gay marriage is "morally unethical":
"Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "
It is not clear to me why the inability to create children implies the inability to raise children. I think that has to be answered for the argument to be sound.
I understand that in a same-sex coupling both parents are of the same sex, but I'm not sure how that guarantees that their children will fail.
To extend my last post, the requirement that partners in marriage be able to physically conceive children isn't reflected in society as of today. Many couples are infertile. For example, I gave my mom complications on the way out, and she lost her uterus, so unless my parents decide to adopt, I will never have a younger sibling.
The article attacks homosexual marriage on the grounds that the physical incapacity of homosexuals to conceive together irrevocably undermines their right to marriage. The authors claim to be defending the traditional definition of marriage, but their reasoning can and must also be applied to heterosexual couples, and would undermine (tens, hundreds of?) millions of marriages currently in effect in the world. The validity of my parents' marriage is suddenly called into question, along with every couple's who have adopted children, are infertile, or otherwise choose not to conceive children.
The last minute connection to polygamy also undermines their entire argument. They act as if their proposed physical conception criteria is not arbitrary [I am arguing that it is], and then they have to go and say "but if we don't follow our criteria we can't outlaw polygamy, because we don't have any other reason to besides this criteria, but we want to outlaw polygamy [totally not arbitrary], therefore our criteria does in fact have a reason to be! [qed!]"
Oh nice joke =D.
I believe it is morally wrong. And one thing, I believe religious reasons are certainly the worst way to support that fact. Quoting from the Bible, Koran, etc makes the argument even weaker and makes the religions look even less appealing. It's like trying to explain why democrats suck with a book written by a hardcore republican. However, this secular argument sums it up rather nicely, defending the role of the traditional marriage and the martial chaos that can ensue and the pain kids must go through to be deprived a mother or a father due to being adopted into a gay family without both a male/female role model. Of course, there are cases in heterosexual marriages too but in a homosexual marriage, almost 100% of the time, a child is deprived either a mother or a father while in heterosexual marriage, it is a much lower percentage, only resulting if the family is divorced or never married in the first place. Furthermore, breaking down the role of marriage to whatever people see fits does affect families adversely, making many take marriage not as seriously as they had 100 years ago when it was near PERMANENT.
This article I found sums up a secular argument about why gay marriage is "morally unethical":
"Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "
It is not clear to me why the inability to create children implies the inability to raise children. I think that has to be answered for the argument to be sound.
I understand that in a same-sex coupling both parents are of the same sex, but I'm not sure how that guarantees that their children will fail.
To extend my last post, the requirement that partners in marriage be able to physically conceive children isn't reflected in society as of today. Many couples are infertile. For example, I gave my mom complications on the way out, and she lost her uterus, so unless my parents decide to adopt, I will never have a younger sibling.
The article attacks homosexual marriage on the grounds that the physical incapacity of homosexuals to conceive together irrevocably undermines their right to marriage. The authors claim to be defending the traditional definition of marriage, but their reasoning can and must also be applied to heterosexual couples, and would undermine (tens, hundreds of?) millions of marriages currently in effect in the world. The validity of my parents' marriage is suddenly called into question, along with every couple's who have adopted children, are infertile, or otherwise choose not to conceive children.
The last minute connection to polygamy also undermines their entire argument. They act as if their proposed physical conception criteria is not arbitrary [I am arguing that it is], and then they have to go and say "but if we don't follow our criteria we can't outlaw polygamy, because we don't have any other reason to besides this criteria, but we want to outlaw polygamy [totally not arbitrary], therefore our criteria does in fact have a reason to be! [qed!]"